Cultural baggage and the adaptation of expatriate
American and Japanese managers.

Abstract:

This study examines the degree to which expatriate managers'
adaptational difficulties in a foreign culture are influenced by the
cultural patterns they encounter in the host country vis-a-vis the
culturally learned patterns expatriates carry with them as members of
their home cultures. The research focused on the adaptation of American
managers to Japan, Japanese managers to the United States and both
American and Japanese managers to Thailand. Results indicate that
Japanese and American managers differ significantly in their attitudinal
satisfaction with living in a foreign culture, perceived effectiveness
in functioning well in a foreign culture, and judged intercultural
abilities in managing stress, communicating effectively, and developing
satisfying relationships in a foreign culture. These findings support
the notion that the cultural background of the exptriate sojourner may
be more important that the particular country-specific environment in
influencing cross-cultural adaptation. (Reprinted by permission of the
publisher.)

* This study examines the degree to which expatriate managers'
adaptational difficulties in a foreign culture are influenced by the
cultural patterns they encounter in the host country vis-a-vis the
culturally learned patterns expatriates carry with them as members of
their home cultures.

* The research focused on the adaptation of American managers to
Japan, Japanese managers to the United States and both American and
Japanese managers to Thailand.

* Results indicate that Japanese and American managers differ
significantly in their attitudinal satisfaction with living in a foreign
culture, perceived effectiveness in functioning well in a foreign
culture, and judged intercultural abilities in managing stress,
communicating effectively, and developing satisfying relationships in a
foreign culture. These findings support the notion that the cultural
background of the expatriate sojourner may be more important than the
particular country-specific environment in influencing cross-cultural
adaptation.

The intercultural' abilities of managers on overseas
assignments are increasingly recognized as important to
bottom-line' performance of multinational businesses (Dowling and
Schuler 1990). As a result of this growing awareness, investigations
focusing on the dimensions of managerial cross-cultural effectiveness
have emerged as one area of inquiry that has received increasing
attention within the international management field (Kealey and Ruben
1983, Tung 1981). Literature in this area has dealt with a number of
matters related to the sojourn assignment, including compensation,
adaptation, selection and training of expatriate managers (Earley 1987,
Mendenhall, Dunbar and Oddou 1987, Mendenhall and Oddou 1985). This work
is part of a larger body of research on sojourners in general dealing
with cross-cultural training (e.g., Gudykunst and Hammer 1983, Landis
and Brislin 1983a, 1983b, 1983c) and sojourner adaptation (see reviews
by Benson 1978, Church 1982, Furnham and Bochner 1986, Kim and Gudykunst
1987, Stening 1979). A number of writers have pointed out that
cross-cultural difficulties can inhibit successful overseas managerial
performance, as evidenced in increased organizational costs, problems in
coping with life in a foreign environment, culture shock, and even
premature return home (Black 1988, Feldman 1976, Harris and Moran 1987,
Henry 1965, Lanier 1979, Schaaf 1981, Tung 1982). Various investigations
have confirmed that the predominant reason for ineffective managerial
performance is not due to the technical competence of the managers
(which is typically quite high), but to the dynamics of the
intercultural experience (Brislin 1981, Dinges 1983, Kealey and Ruben
1983, Tung 1982).

One question that has remained largely unexplored is the relative
importance of the characterteristics of the host culture vis-a-vis the
cultural background of the expatriates themselves. That is, to what
extent are expatriates' difficulties a function of the cultural
patterns they encounter in the host culture and to what extent are they
determined by the culturally learned patterns expatriates carry as
members of their home cultures? The aim of this study was to offer a
preliminary investigation of this important issue. To this end, the
research sought to assess the level of success in adaptation experienced
by expatriate managers from two cultures, each working in the
other's culture and both working in a third country. Specifically,
this study examines the cross-cultural adaptation of American managers
in Japan, Japanese managers in the United States and both American and
Japanese managers in Thailand.

Before proceeding to a discussion of the methods employed in the
study, the choice of expatriate groups and assignment locations deserves
brief explanation. At the practical level, the choice of Americans and
Japanese as the two expatriate groups was straightforward: these groups
are, in number of persons and in revenue generated through international
trade, the most important groups of their kind. At the theoretical
level, the choice of these two culture groups was based on the work of
Hofstede (1980), who derived four dimensions of cultural variability
based on data obtained from managers in 53 countries employed by a large
multinational firm. The identified dimensions are: (1) Power Distance,
the degree to which unequal power distributions are accepted; (2)
Uncertainty Avoidance, the degree to which cultures have a higher
tolerance for uncertainty and ambiguity; (3) Individualism, the degree
to which individuals' goals take precedence over group goals; and
(4) Masculinity, the degree to which cultures place a higher value on
things, power and assertiveness versus people, quality of life and
nurturance. The 'scores' obtained by Hofstede (1980) for the
US on each of the four dimensions are: (1) power distance = 40; (2)
uncertainty avoidance = 46; (3) individualism = 91; and (4) masculinity
= 62. The scores obtained by Hofstede for Japan are: (1) power distance
= 54; (2) uncertainty avoidance = 92; individualism = 46; and
masculinity = 95. As a point of comparison, the mean scores on each
dimension for the thirty-nine countries in the Hofstede study are: (1)
power distance = 51; (2) uncertainty avoidance = 64; (3) individualism =
51; (4) masculinity = 51. Further, the rank positions of Japan and the
United States among the thirty-nine countries on each dimension were,
respectively, as follows: (1) power distance, 21 and 25; (2) untertainty
avoidance, 4 and 31; (3) individualism, 22 and 1; (4) masculinity, 1 and
13. Though there are certain cultural similarities, particularly with
respect to power distance, overall these scores reflect clear
differences in cultural patterns between the two countries, providing a
theoretical basis for selecting Japanese and American managers in
examining the influence of culture' on adaptation.

While assessments of the degree of adaptation of Japanese managers
in the United States and American managers in Japan provides one kind of
comparison, it does not permit as rigorous an examination of the
influence of culture as desired. That is, it would be difficult to
determine, if differences were found in adaptation between these two
groups, whether the observed differences were actually due to cultural
background or to differences in the cultural environments in which
adaptation occurred.

Therefore, it became necessary to examine the adaptation pattern of
Japanese managers and American managers in a 'third' cultural
setting which would represent as closely as possible an 'equally
difficult' cultural environment for managerial adaptation. In this
respect, Thailand is an acceptable choice as it has been identified as
culturally dissimilar to both the United States and Japan
(Runglertkrengkrai and Engkaninan 1987), a conclusion supported by the
work of Hofstede (1980). The scores obtained by Hofstede for Thailand on
the four dimensions of cultural variability are: (1) power distance =
64; (2) uncertainty avoidance = 64; (3) individualism = 20; and (4)
masculinity = 34, indicating that Thailand is closer to Japan on power
distance and individualism and closer to the United States on
uncertainty avoidance and masculinity. Further, Hofstede's analysis
integrating the four dimensions shows that Japan forms a cluster of its
own ("More Developed Asian"), the United States is part of the
"Anglo" cluster, while Thailand is part of another cluster
("Less Developed Asian"). Thus, while it would be going too
far to argue that Thailand is equidistant from Japan and the United
States, it does fulfill the criteria for a third', independent
cultural environment.

Methods

Sample

The study is based on the responses of 62 American managers in
Japan, 70 Japanese managers in the United States and 36 American and 123
Japanese managers in Thailand. All the managers surveyed were male.
Using lists of expatriate managers compiled from information obtained
from the American Chamber of Commerce in Japan, the Japan Business
Association of Southern California (Los Angeles), the American Chamber
of Commerce in Thailand and the Japanese Chamber of Commerce in Thailand
and the Japanese Chamber of Commerce, Bangkok, questionnaires were
mailed to a sample of 150, 150, 90 and 250 senior and middle-level
expatriate managers in these locations, respectively. The response rates
ranged from 40 percent (American managers in Thailand) to 49 percent
(Japanese managers in Thailand) and can be considered to be quite
satisfactory, especially when compared to similar studies.

The pertinent characteristics of each sample are provided in Table
1. In general, each of the four sample groups appear to be similar on
most background characteristics examined. These include age; marital
status; whether the manager was accompanied by his spouse; whether the
manager and spouse had any children; number of children; educational
attainments;,number of months on assignment in host culture and previous
experience in the host culture. A difference did exist in previous
overseas work experience; eighty- three percent of the Americans in
Thailand had previous experience in other countries compared to 36
percent of the Japanese in the United States and 29 percent of Americans
in Japan and Japanese in Thailand. Also, the Americans in Thailand had
spent a somewhat longer time working in other cultures than the other
Japanese or Americans in the study. Overall, the typical'
respondent was between 41 and 46 years of age, married and with
children. The respondents' spouse accompanied the manager on the
overseas assignment. The respondent had a college degree, little work
experience in other countries, and no previous experience in the host
culture. The respondent had been working on his present assignment,
however, for three years or longer.

[TABULAR DATA OMITTED]

Research instruments

Measures for perceived effectiveness, perceived satisfaction,
ability to establish interpersonal relationships, ability to manage
stress, and ability to communicate effectively were based on the work of
Hammer and his associates (Gudykunst and Hammer 1984, Hammer 1987,
Hammer, Gudykunst and Wiseman 1978, Hammer, Nishida and Jezek 1988). In
the original study, Hammer et al. (1978) examined 24 personal abilities
thought to be important in sojourner effectiveness. Through factor
analysis, three dimensions of intercultural effectiveness were
identified: (1) ability to manage psychological stress; (2) ability to
effectively communicate; and (3) ability to establish interpersonal
relationships. Subsequent research using Japanese and American samples
(Abe and Wiseman 1983, Gudykunst and Hammer 1984, Hammer 1987) confirmed
the three-factor model. The present research, based upon this conceptual
model, employs a slightly modified version of the measures of
intercultural effectiveness developed by Hammer et al. (1978).
Specifically, in the present study, the following items from the Hammer
et al. (1978) study were employed: (1) intercultural stress scale:
ability to deal effectively with frustration, ability to deal
effectively with stress, ability to deal effectively with different
political systems, and ability to deal effectively with anxiety; (2)
intercultural communication scale: ability to initiate interaction with
a stranger, ability to enter into meaningful dialogue with other people,
and ability to effectively deal with communication misunderstandings
between myself and others; and (3) intercultural relationship scale:
ability to develop satisfying interpersonal relationships with other
people, ability to maintain satisfying interpersonal relationships with
other people, ability to accurately understand the feelings of another
person, ability to empathize with another person, and ability to
effectively work with other people.

For each of these items, respondents were asked to rate their
ability on a six-point scale (1 = very able; 6 = not at all able). To
assess satisfaction and perceived effectiveness, respondents were asked
to rate themselves on a six-point scale (1 = greater satisfaction and
greater perceived effectiveness, respectively; 6 = less satisfaction and
less perceived effectiveness, respectively). The questionnaire also
asked respondents to provide various items of background information on
themselves.

While the questionnaires for the American managers were, naturally,
in English, those for the Japanese managers were in Japanese and, to
ensure equivalence with the English language version, had been
translated and then back-translated (see Abe and Wiseman 1983).

Accompanying the questionnaire was a cover letter (in Japanese for
the Japanese managers) explaining, in broad terms, the purpose of the
study, and a stamped addressed envelope in which to return the completed
questionnaire.

Results

Table 2 presents a summary of the scale reliabilities analysis
(coefficient alpha), means and standard deviations for the intercultural
stress scale, the intercultural communication scale, the intercultural
relationship scale, and the satisfaction and effectiveness items for
each of the four groups studied. Reliabilities for the stress,
communication and relationship measures were generally satisfactory
(0.65 or higher) with the coefficient alphas for group 3 (Americans in
Thailand; N = 36) for the stress and communication scales being somewhat
low (0.60 and 0.50, respectively).

[TABULAR DATA OMITTED]

Overall, all four groups had generally positive ratings of their
attitudinal satisfaction and perceived effectiveness in living in the
host cultures as well as their abilities to manage intercultural stress,
communicate effectively, and develop satisfying intercultural
relationships.

Table 3 presents Pearson coefficient correlations for all variables
examined for each of the four groups. Correlations among all the
variables were significant p<0.05) for GI (Japanese managers in
Thailand) and G4 (Japanese managers in the US). For G2 (Americans in
Japan), only the correlation between communication and satisfaction
(0.07) was not significant. For G3 Americans in Thailand), correlations
between stress and relationships (0.13); stress and effectiveness
(0.25); communication and relationships (0.03), satisfaction (0.19), and
effectiveness (0.18) were not significant. In general, moderate
intercorrelations exist among the variables.

[TABULAR DATA OMITTED]

Table 4 presents the results of one-way analysis of variance used
to test the influence of cultural background versus host culture
environment on managers' effectiveness. Results on attitudinal
satisfaction reveal significant differences among the means of the four
groups (F 3,288 = 9.67, p < 0.05). Further analysis (Duncan's
Multiple Range Test) indicates that the Japanese in Thailand (G1) were
significantly less satisfied with living in the host culture that the
other groups (G2, G3 and G4).

For effectiveness, significant differences among the means were
found (F 3,288 = 6.48, p < 0.05). Additional analysis indicates that
the Japanese in Thailand (GI) perceived themselves as significantly less
effective in functioning in the host culture than either of the two
American groups (G2, G3), and the Japanese in the US (G4) rated
themselves as significantly less effective in living in the host culture
than the Americans in Thailand (G3).

Significant differences were found among the four group means on
the three ability dimensions (Stress: F3,288 = 7.05, p<0.05;
Communication: F 3,288 = 3.42, p < 0.05; Relationship: F 3,288 =
4.54, p < 0.05). Additional analysis reveals that: (1) the two
Japanese manager groups (G1, G4) rated themselves significantly lower in
their ability to manage stress than the American groups (G2, G3); the
Japanese managers in Thailand (G1) rated themselves as significantly
less able to effectively communicate compared to the American managers
in Thailand (G3) while the Japanese in the US (G4) rated themselves
significantly lower in their ability to communicate effectively than
either of the two American manager groups (G2, G3); and (3) the Japanese
managers in Thailand (G1) viewed themselves significantly lower in their
ability to establish intercultural relationships than the American
managers in Thailand (G3), while the Japanese managers in the US (G4)
rated themselves significantly lower in their ability to establish
intercultural relationships than either of the two American manager
groups (G2, G3).

Discussion

This study provides evidence that Japanese and American managers
differ significantly in their attitudinal satisfaction with living in a
foreign culture, perceived effectiveness in functioning well in a
foreign culture, and judged intercultural abilities in managing stress,
communicating effectively, and developing satisfying relationships. This
particular pattern of results offers preliminary support for the notion
that it is the cultural background of the individuals which may be more
important than the particular country-specific environment in
influencing stress, communication and relationship skill enactment. That
is, there was greater similarity (less variance) in Japanese manager
responses in two different country-specific contexts (Thailand and the
US) and in American manager responses in two different country-specific
contexts (Thailand and Japan) compared to responses from expatriate
managers (Japanese and American) in Thailand or in the others' host
culture (i.e., Japan or the US). For instance, it was argued earlier
that the Thailand experience was fairly similar for both the Japanese
and American managers. Yet in spite of this apparent country-specific
similarity of experience, the American (G3) and Japanese (G1) managers
in Thailand differed significantly in their responses on all variables
assessed, while there were no significant differences between the two
American manager groups (G2, G3) nor between the two Japanese (GI, G4)
manager groups (with the exception of the satisfaction measure) despite
the two very different cultural contexts lived in by the American and
Japanese managers.

These findings also suggest that, from the respondents' own
assessments, the Japanese managers had a generally less favorable
attitude toward their intercultural experience and their social skills
compared to the American managers. From a training standpoint, these
results may suggest a greater self-perceived need for cross-cultural
preparation efforts for the Japanese managers. Further, these findings
would seem to indicate that at least some focus in the training may be
profitably directed toward increasing the managers stress management,
communication and relationship skills. Leaving aside the possibility of
response bias in the data for the moment, one might be led to conclude
that those studies (e.g., Tung 1982) which have commented very favorably
on the success' achieved by Japanese firms in managing their
expatriates may have used as their criteria (for example, proportion of
early returns to the host culture), variables which, by the nature of
the pressures imposed by Japanese society, reflect better on Japanese
firms than American firms, and which may mask difficulties and anxieties
felt by individual expatriate managers.

There are two potential alternative explanations for the findings
obtained in the present study that need to be discussed. First, it is
possible that the generally lower scores of the Japanese managers
reflect a response bias rather than an actual difference in perceived
satisfaction, effectiveness and judged ability in managing stress,
communicating effectively, and establishing intercultural relationships.
While this is always a danger in conducting cross-cultural research,
there is evidence from other studies (e.g., Stening and Everett 1984) to
suggest that it is not a serious problem when seeking to compare the
responses of expatriate American and Japanese managers.

A second possible explanation for the findings concerns the
potential con- founding influence of the organization' in
influencing the degree of cross- cultural effectiveness obtained by the
Japanese and American managers. This argument would have greater force
if one of the outcome measures of cross- cultural effectiveness
concerned job performance. However, the three measures of effectiveness
used in the present study were concerned with aspects of cross-cultural
adaptation that occur outside of the immediate influence of the
particular organizations involved. Further, while there is a wealth of
literature illustrating the differences between American and Japanese
management philosophies and practices, structurally the corporations
within which the American and Japanese managers in this study worked
were very similar in the sense that they were predominantly very large,
multinational corporations.

To conclude, a specific implication for cross-cultural training and
three suggestions for future research in this area appear warranted.
Typically, culturespecific cross-cultural training programs are designed
with the assumption that increased understanding of the target culture
will lead to improved adaptation in that culture. Our findings suggest
that standardized culture-specific training (e.g., the area studies
models) may be insufficient because the cultural background factors
(e.g., values, non-verbal expressiveness) are not adequately accounted
for. For example, culture- specific training for Thailand-bound
expatriates should be different for Japanese than for American managers.

Research needs to examine further the influence of cultural
background on the cross-cultural effectiveness of Japanese and American
managers using other host-culture environments. In this regard, the
theoretical work of Hofstede (1980) provides one useful approach for
conceptualizing cultural variability. Second, previous research by Ruben
(1976), Ruben and Kealey (1979), Hawes and Kealey (1981), Nishida (1985)
and Hammer and Clarke (1987) demonstrates that intercultural skills are
highly predictive of a number of intercultural effectiveness and
adaptation outcomes, including attitudinal satisfaction with living in a
foreign culture and perceived effective functioning in a foreign
culture. Further, the work by Hammer and his associates (Gudykunst and
Hammer 1984, Hammer et al. 1978, Hammer 1987, Hammer 1989) indicates
that the stress management, communication and relationship skills
assessed in the present study are viewed as important by both the
Japanese and Americans in facilitating their effective functioning in a
foreign culture. Therefore, future research needs to begin to specify a
model of intercultural effectiveness which incorporates the three
intercultural skill domains of stress management, communication and
relationship maintenance. One intriguing question that needs to be
investigated, therefore, is: to what degree are stress management
skills, communication skills, and relationship skills predictive of the
managers attitudinal satisfaction and perceived effectiveness in
functioning well in the targeted foreign cultures? Finally, further work
is clearly required to link the self-report data of studies such as this
to other, possibly more objective, measures of adjustment and
performance.